User talk:Stakeshita/sandbox

Todd's Peer Review of Steven's Page
Lead Section: Your lead section gives a good introduction to the language. However, you make some very specific factual claims that do require citations, e.g. " Massacres by early colonists and poor treatment on the cattle stations led to the endangerment of Bilinarra." Those should be pretty easy to add in though. Additionally, I appreciated that you already had inserted a hyperlink to another wiki article. There are a couple places where could put in more links such as to "Gurindji" if a page exists for that language, and you could probably mention one or two words about that language as well for context.

Infobox: I really like that you have an info box that includes a map. That is really cool and makes this feel like a real Wikipedia page. I am going to need to remember to add one to my page.

Phonology Section: Your phonology section seems well organized and reminds me that I need to figure out what the stress is for my language. I saw that you were able to get the /m/ to stay on the left side of the bilabial-nasal box in your consonants chart. I couldn't do that, so I went into your code and saw that you did that by merging the cells together. That was super helpful to say how that was done! For you vowels chart, it might be helpful for you to do something similar to that as well since you don't show the roundness.

Morphology Section: Your morphology section seems to have all of the relevant information. I did have a little bit of trouble following your formula: "ROOT + (DERIV) + (NUM) + (ADNOM) + (CASE) + CASE # [ = (DISCOURSE CLITIC ) = (PRONOMINAL CLITIC ) = (DUBITATIVE CLITIC)]" I think it is possible that you might be able to explain that more clearly. Additionally, I think it might be helpful to organize your morphology into affixation and non-affixation processes and then subsections with in those like "Derivational Suffixation" and "Inflectional Suffixation."

Syntax Section: I like that you've separated out simple sentences and headedness. I think that makes the syntax easier to follow. I think you might be able to improve your three line gloss a little bit. It's kinda hard to read and looks a little disruptive in the text. I did the three line gloss inside boxes, which I thought made it easier to follow.

Case and Agreement Section: I did not have a case and agreement section, but, after seeing yours, I know that I should have one, so thank you for that! Additionally, I think you could change the name of your second subsection from "Ergative" to "Ergative and Absolutive" to parallel the first section "Nominative and Accusative."

Wholistic Review: On the whole, I learned a lot from your page! I know that I need to write much more in my lead after seeing your's and I want to add in an info box and a section about case and agreement. I think that your overall structure is clear and organized; I do not think that you need to change it. I would, however, definitely add in citations to your article since they are pretty sparse all around. Overall, you struct a good, neutral tone; I did not really see any biased opinions. Moreover, your sections seemed balanced given the amount and importance of the information that your conveyed. Great job!

ToddSGilman (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Todd Gilman

John's Peer Review
Lead Section: I thought that your lead section was good in getting me attracted to the subject because the first line talked about how the language was extremely endangered. You go straight into me interesting overall facts about your language which I like because it gets me prepared to read the rest of our in-depth analysis of your language. I just wish you would tell us a little more about the language and how is it spoken today, how many people speak it and maybe a reason why it is endangered if you can find the reason.

Phonology: The examples you use in your chart are very helpful in visual representation of your information. Your section is very clean precise and doesn’t boggle the reader down with unnecessary information or overlong sections. Your phonology section is simple which I like, but it makes me feel as if something may be missing, if nothing is missing, then I think this section is very god and I like all of the examples you use.

Morphology: I like the beginning of the section where you have this sentence that explains what you are showing when going into the structure of a sentence. It gets me prepared for what I am about to see and what is to come. I enjoy the conciseness of your explanations and there seems to be not much missing from my perspective which is nice as a reader because it is very simple to understand. I like this section but remember to leave clear keys when using abbreviations.

Syntax: I like the intro you give this section and explanation, in your examples though I think it’d be best to maybe put what the word order is (VOS or SVO) and label above the original sentence to give a clearer picture of what is presented, similar to Professor Kalin’s page. I like your headedness section and the fact that you gave two examples, labeling the head and the complement would make it a bit easier for the reader though.

Case and Agreement: Good job getting to this in your first draft. I really liked this section as it has a good lead in sentence, the examples are clear and very concise.

Overall: Overall, the page was very good, and I am very impressed with your consonant chart and how you set it up to see what each is. You have very good detail and lead in sentences in each section. There is nothing that distracts, and you are not redundant which is good. I think your biggest strength lies within your examples and your organization. It was very easy to read your page and all of your examples for the most part were easy to grasp and see what point you were making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngarcia331521 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)